I’ve been writing on the process of discernment and decision making. As such, I was going to wrap things up with a discussion on the moral obligation to follow your conscience, assuming that it is “well-formed.” That specific topic led me to a wide variety of thoughts regarding some issues that are really foundational precursors to this particular topic. Let me explain. The concept of following one’s conscience is based on discerning “right” from “wrong,” and “good” from “evil.” Who decides what falls within each of these categories, and what those categories really mean, could be a focus of another article. The idea that particular circumstances, or other factors, and how they might affect if something is “less bad,” because someone’s hand might have been forced, could be another. What about circumstances of war, or famine, or any of other issues that affect people’s actions in profound ways? A multitude of topics, all focused on moral decision making swirled in my head. Rather than taking weeks to cover these topics, let’s chip away at these with a few definitions and assertions.
First of all, it has become popular to believe that each of us has the right, and ability, to determine what we believe to be right or wrong in our own, particular, circumstances. Adherents to this concept of moral relativity assert that no one can judge the actions of another, and that each of us is given “free will” to decide what is right and wrong for ourselves. While it might sound great to give each person autonomy over their own decisions, we need to consider if every person should be given that right. What if the person thinks that rape or incest are perfectly fine? Is it ever morally fine to beat up an innocent person, simply, because of the color of their skin? There are people who might think so. If we say that rape and incest are never morally acceptable, we are stating a “moral absolute.” If we say that individuals should never be subjected to maltreatment because of their race, we are stating another moral absolute. The principle behind these absolutes is the dignity of the human person, also called the dignity of life. We hold that this dignity exists because we are all created in the image and likeness of God. All of us. We believe in this God-given principle, and no person’s personal opinion can change that.
Further, the concept of “free will” as something that means that everyone has the ability to choose their own actions, is often misunderstood. Yes, humans have the ability to choose their own actions, but not all actions are good. Some of them are downright evil. The God-given principles of truth, justice and inherent goodness guide us, or should guide us, in our decisions. It’s not like every decision is on an even playing field that turns life into a “whatever you want to do” type of proposition. All of us are held morally accountable for our actions. As Christians, we believe that this accounting comes, especially, at the time of our death, and when Jesus comes again.
Are there, however, circumstances when a person isn’t “as guilty” of a bad act because of a particular situation? Yes, there are! Think of self-defense or war, in particular. Defense against an “unjust aggressor” is always allowed. Even though killing a human is considered a mortal sin, there are principles, like the “just war theory” that allow us to examine when something that is always considered bad, has become a necessary evil. Those that do these acts will still have to answer to our Creator, but their culpability will be mitigated, meaning that they won’t be held to the same standard as someone who did the act without those circumstances. So much more could be said. Let me know if you are interested.
